Actually, a 54/46 split makes sense -- because this is the Republican electorate, not the general population. In NH, for instance, the gender split was 57/43 in the Republican primary and 43/57 in the Democrat one. So maybe it should even be a wider gender gap in that poll...

This Fred supporter plans to back Romney. I honestly think that Romney will take it all. He's a governor (i.e. Executive branch of gov't.), running against a bunch of Democrat Senators--McCain, Hillary, and Obama. It's been a long, long time since the Senate was a springboard for the Presidency. Voters want a can-do President, not someone accustomed to calling meetings and press conferences.

To judge by the numbers and anecdotal evidence, McCain's really going to struggle in closed primaries, so I concur - Romney is now functionally the leader of the pack in every sense going into Florida. The question is whether Giuliani's strategy (bet the farm on a breakthrough in Fla.) will pay off - if it does (I think it will), it becomes a horse race again. But I wouldn't be surprised if the horse race will be Giuliani vs. Romney rather than McCain v. Romney as RCocean alluded to (although the balance of his/her analysis holds).

For a while now, both Romney and Thompson were running as the authentic "triple" conservative – social, economic, and military.

Romney is weakened on the social by how he governed in Massachusetts, but it isn't like he did anything worse than Reagan signing the abortion-liberalizing law in California. So, with Thompson out, the relatively logical second choice for his supporters was Romney.

McCain? His problem is, as the article pointed out, his faceplant on immigration. But it's more nuanced than "nativist" sentiment. Your typical Republican voter (at least the ones I've talked to) wold prefer we let in twelve million new, never-been-in-America-before, Mexicans than legalize ten million partly-assimilated Mexicans that are already here illegally. This typical Republican might not be enthusiastic about immigration, but he's even less enthusiastic about rewarding lawbreaking.

Veterans, retired around Florida aren't going to get the politics of MCCain they just see him as one of them and they vote.

They vote in primaries.

It's basically over.

McCain has a large lead in The Field Poll out in California particularly given that it is a three way race.

Add to that the momentum of winning Florida, and we're looking at the next nominee.

Given Hillary's unfavorables with Democrat males McCain is the next president and the only thing that could possibly stop him would be a Rudy -Romney alliance, which I don't think either has the stomache for right now.

Steven, I think that's exactly right. There's something that people on the other side of the immigration debate miss about those who are hostile to illegal immigation, which is that for the overwhelming majority - not just the "typical Republican voter" - opposition to illegal immigration has nothing to do with nativism or immigation. To the extent it's found on the right, hostility to illegal immigration has to do with that most traditional of all conservative concerns, law and order. (When it's found on the left, it has to do with that most traditional of all left wing concerns, organized labor being made totally irrelevant). The other side really doesn't get this, hence you get questions on surveys such as (I'm not making this up) "should illegal immigrants who have broken no law be allowed to remain in the United States?" The answer to that question is, of course - and obviously so - "yes," but it defines an unpopulated class, because all illegal immigrants have broken the law, ex vi termini. So the upshot, it seems to me, is that you can talk about a comprehensive solution but what you can't talk about is amnesty, which is precicely why John McCain has been tarred and feathered for his position on immigration while Newt Gingrich - who, like me, argues that you are not going to fix illegal immigation until you fix (which is to say, liberalize and make efficient) legal immigation - has not.

I speak with people every day who are fed up with Mexicans, and it isn't because of abstract "law and order" concerns. They don't want to hear Spanish in public places. They think most young latinos are "gangbangers". (The general consensus seems to be: latino + hiphop = gang member.) They don't want to "Press one for English". They don't like feeling "like foreigners in their own country".

I appreciate that there are arguments for militarized border security and large-scale deportation that don't depend on "nativism" (a charitable word).

But the idea that the "typical Republican voter" is motivated purely by such concerns is pretty dubious, that "the vast majority" are is downright laughable. This and this seem more typical of life outside the blogosphere.

Simon said... Hhostility to illegal immigration has to do with that most traditional of all conservative concerns, law and order.

Really? Given that the contemporary definition of "conservative concerns" actually is "promoting the interests of a terminally-corrupted Republican party and its corporate sponsors through the use of character assassination, distortion, propaganda, and lies."

Roost, I don't think that the examples you identify cut against my major point which is that nativism has little to do with it in most cases. I think it's a stretch to identify hostility to bilingualism as "nativism" - it's rooted in sound public policy concerns, and in any event, if you'll forgive a detour into the personal, I'm opposed to bilingualism, and it would be awkward for you to be stuck in the position of suggesting an immigrant is a nativist. Clearly there must be some other explanation. ;) And the concern about gangs brings us back to law and order concerns - the concern there isn't latino gangs, its latino gangs.

We get the picture. Twice. I think you're saying that you would never vote for a Mormon.

Windbag, I used to think that governors had it all over senators when it came to actually behaving like an executive. Then I get all bummed out thinking about Carter, Clinton, Bush. Could be that they never wanted to be govs and only lasted long enough to get into presidential races. Romney, on paper, appears to be what an executive should be.

I'm not disputing that one can form good arguments against bilingualism or immigration. I'm just saying that those arguments account for maybe 5% of the off-blog discourse I hear on the topic of immigration.

I think you're underestimating the force of the nativist sentiment in this country. As a well-educated white-collar immigrant (perhaps with an accent?), you might not be the type people gripe to about this stuff.

I think you're underestimating the force of the nativist sentiment in this country.

I guess that depends on what you call "nativist sentiment". Certainly the attitude that immigrants should come here (a) with our permission and (b) with the intent of changing to fit our culture, not changing our culture to fit them, is pretty widespread. If you want to call that "nativism" then, hey -- guilty as charged. Of course, all the legal immigrants I know are "nativists" under that definition. :)

But nativism in the traditional sense -- i.e., "this is our country, we don't want any damned immigrants" -- is not a significant part of the anti-illegal sentiment.

Do consider exactly how I phrased my observation. The ones I'm talking about are not enthusiastic about Mexican immigration. Most wouldn't want twelve million Mexican immigrants, given their druthers. (A few think Mexican immigration is a positive, and so would, but they're the minority.) But given a choice only between the two options I presented, they would almost universally choose more Mexicans who never broke U.S. law over fewer Mexicans who broke immigration law.

Some of them are conscious bigots; some are unconscious bigots; some are genuinely thoughtful; a few, like I said, are even pro-immigration. But all of them, when they're told their opposition to amnesty is bigotry, get their backs up. Their first objection to people getting legalized isn't that they're brown, but that they're being rewarded for breaking the law.

That NYT article seems to present the notion that elections are all about harmony among candidates rather than the will of voters. Meanwhile their guy on the left, the one promoting international kumbaiya, is sounding less than agreeable these days, and the ex-thong-snapper in chief is acting like another heart attack is a definite possibility.

Isn't it eye popping that the 2 Dem. Party candidates are squabbling over RACE and GENDER, while the 'fractured and ill-willed' Rep. Party is squabbling over ideas and philosophy.RACE and GENDER, two taboo subjects of Liberal Democrats are the main issues of the Democrat Party nomination race.

You make a fair point, and I'll concede that charges of racism are often the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Still, I object to the characterization of this often-ugly movement as mostly motivated by abstract respect for the law. Are these same people out fighting against statutes of limitations?

To put it another way, would they be for harshly punishing the American farmer who employed an "illegal" 15 years ago? It seems to me that their sense of justice would be satisfied by just sending the worker back.

Still, I object to the characterization of this often-ugly movement as mostly motivated by abstract respect for the law.

Why? Because you then can't dismiss them as bigots? I don't see the movement as ugly. Why do you? I see projection in your characterization of the movement to enforce the borders. Since when is respect for the law an "abtract concept"? Maybe in lefwing circles where laws are discarded or ignored when it becomes an impediment to power it is the rule of law an "abstract". Otherwise, it is ingrained in the American character; no one is above the law.

The objection to illegal immigration cuts across party lines and hell yes it is a response to lawlessness; the unwillingness of the Feds to enforce the law and then our institutions rewarding the lawbreakers with access to priviledges of citizenship.

It is no mistake that those supporting open borders and amnesty have been painting their opponents as bigots and racists; they are trying to shut us up and deter people like you from thinking about supporting the issue. I find that uglier.

While I disagree with Downtownlad about almost everything, I think he is generally on target about voter apprehension and misunderstanding of Mormons (Latter Day Saints to be politically correct). Now, I have absolutely no other empirical evidence to offer for my belief--at this point it is my belief.

Ugh. I thought I was very careful to make clear that I'm not dismissing any arguments. A lot of anger, ignorance and bigotry on one side doesn't make it automatically wrong.

I see projection in your characterization of the movement to enforce the borders.

I'm the bigot. Duly noted.

Maybe in leftwing circles...blah blah blah.

As I have said, I think the argument against amnesty on the grounds that the law must be fairly and universally applied is a sound one.

I'm just wondering where the movement to jail all the farmers is. They've conspired to commit a federal crime.

Twelve million "illegals" over the course of two decades. That's a lot of farmers, too. Using enhanced interrogation techniques on the illegals and their known employers, I bet we could crack this thing wide open.

Ten dollars would be a small price to pay for a head of JUSTICE LETTUCE.

Michigan elected his daddy Governor 40 years ago, at a time when the US was a lot less tolerant of diversity when it is now. That was a time when black Detroiters burned their neighborhoods down, while in Western Michigan, Calvinist peer pressure kept people from mowing their lawns on Sunday.

With Fred gone, there is no clear successor. Huckabee is too nutty to attract the non-evangelical vote.

McCain was quoted in the paper as being pro-Iraq war and pro-Israel, so he'll get the neocon vote. But he's always been squishy on guns, and his McCain-Feingold bill kept the NRA from running pro-candidate ads, so he's turned off the gunner vote.

I'm just wondering where the movement to jail all the farmers is. They've conspired to commit a federal crime.

Because the opponents of illegal immigration realise that the farmer is not authorized to do background checks on their workers immigration status. We realise that the farmer isn't responsible for enforcing immigration laws. We can empathize with farmers trying to make a living. We realise that the farmer is a symptom of the greater problem of lack of enforcement.

We don't empathise with an illegal forging IDs and/or committing identity theft in order to fool an employer into hiring him. Or the illegal who has no intention of becoming a citizen, assimilating or who views the South West of the USA as "stolen land" because thats what they teach them in Mexican schools.

There actually IS a movement to target employers who knowingly hire illegals, like contractors or meat packing plant owners/operators. This has resulted in an exodus of illegals and lines of Americans taking those jobs they aren't supposed to want.

Maybe "projection" isn't the correct word, but you seem to be going out of your way to impugne those on the border enforcement side with being crypto-racists in their heart.

This isn't the '60's. For many fruits and vegetable growers these days, labor composing about 5% of all costs. Peaches are a notable exception: labor make up 50% of costs.

All those thousands of contractors hiring illegal aliens down the street from Home Depot know exactly what they are doing, however, and they rarely get arrested for it. They also don't collect income or social taxes on the wages they pay, another federal crime. Same holds true for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who employ illegal aliens to clean their houses and take care of their yards. Never read about any of them who violate the law with great regularity. Unless and until you do, then nothing will change.

A lot of farmers shift responsibility for hiring illegals by dealing with labor contractors. A labor contractor is a guy with two old schoolbuses and Spanish fluency, who will bring a work crew to prune or pick. It's his responsibility to check for the legal right to work in the U.S.

I live in the South and I do not know many racist people. Now part of this is choice as I don't LIKE racist people. But the vast majority of my friends are very concerned about illegal immigration.

It is not that they are different, it is that they are illegal! Legal immigration is a wonderful part of our country and culture, and frankly legal immigration should be streamlined and simplified. America prospers in part because of our legal immigrants.

But people coming here illegally must stay under the radar. They don't pay their share of taxes, they don't serve jury duty, they don't have the immunizations that legal immigrants must have, and they don't join our culture because they know they are illegal and have to stay at least somewhat underground. They get their medical care at the emergency room, we pay for that. Because so many come from countries without adequate healthcare, they are responsible (certainly unwittingly) for the rise in TB, polio, and drug resistant staph and such. We pay for that.

Legal immigrants, God bless them, do not bring these problems with them as the difficulties are either treated before they immigrate, or serve to bar people who will or cannot contribute from joining our country. Those are the problems, well some of them. And none of them have anything to do with race.

I think that the people who shout racism are using that as a straw man to distract from their real goals, turning the illegals into voters or as part of the reconquista movement.

As I have said, I think the argument against amnesty on the grounds that the law must be fairly and universally applied is a sound one.

Except, of course, that you are making the idiotic assumption that supporting the fair and universal enforcement of *a* law requires that we support the fair and universal enforcement of *all* laws. A person can support firm and universal support of the laws against rape and burglary, for example, without demanding that everyone who jaywalks or exceeds the speed limit be fined or jailed.

Entering the country illegally is a far worse crime than hiring a person who entered the country illegally. The only reason the latter is a crime at all, after all, is that it encourages the former.

I know, I know. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Not making a moral equivalence, more like a legal one. I'm trying to illustrate that this is not only about equal application of the law. That's how it gets argued most of the time, but not where the passion comes from.

I don't know where I stand on this issue, actually. It's huge and complicated. The "no amnesty whatsoever: it's simply illegal" argument is intuitive and satisfying, but not practical, and comes at a cost (both human and financial) that I think few people comprehend.

That entire third paragraph of Trey's is made of well-reasoned, non-racist reasons why large communities of illegal immigrants hurt our country. Notice though, that amnesty solves all of them, while a crackdown makes them all worse.

Fencers of stolen goods aren't cops, either. If a farmer is paying his migrant workers under the table, he isn't just failing to play policeman.

A person who pays employees under the table without withholding the appropriate taxes is breaking the law regardless of the status of the person he is paying. It is illegal to pay American workers that way, too. So, yes, those people should be punished. The majority of employers who simply have no way of knowing the status of their employees, however, have in my view done nothing wrong.

But like I noted before, illegally entering the country is a far worse crime, so punishing it should receive a higher priority in either case.

If enough people believed, like rev, that employers should not be responsible for checking their employees immigration status, Zoe Baird, or at least Kimba Wood, would have been BJC's attorney general, and not Janet "We had to destroy the Branch Davidians' kids in order to save them" Reno.

Preventing criminals from profiting off of their crimes is what we have a government for.

This statement raises a lot of issues: First, entering the country illegally is not a crime at all. There is no stigma; nobody pays a fine or goes to jail; the remedy is simply deportation. (The immigrant may be detained but this is when he chooses to stay and fight deportation.) Second, the person profiting from the illegal workforce is (1) the labor contractor, and (2) the farmer, who even with the contractor's skim pays less than he would have to pay legal workers. So, the rev would have to put the farmer in jail, to be consistent.